User talk:AlanHarmony

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Joelito (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Evolution
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that someone else or you knows more about Darwin's use of dreams than I do? Sorry if I don't believe you. Information in one of my published books, Practically Dreaming, (see my profile) plus an article written for Epiphanies Magazine show that Darwin used his dreams for his discoveries relating to evolution. This use of dreams makes Darwin a minor prophet. If you prefer to limit or block knowledge that is your prerogative, however my view is that imposing such limitations show blatant political interference and/or ignorance, not an openness to knowledge and learning. My comments are always designed to be constructive and informative even if they might irk those who oppose progress and knowledge. Several more topical areas I'm above averagely informed about will ruffle more feathers of those who want the status quo to remain. So if by adding constructive material to the biased and limited knowledge I have become a vandal then continue on without me. I've got better things to do. --AlanHarmony 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. dave souza, talk 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the above response. --AlanHarmony 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, since you've got better things to do we will probably have to get along without your contributions. Evolution and Darwin seem to attract contributions which fail to stand up to the scrutiny which WP:NPOV and WP:RS require for scientific matters, WP:NOR constrains such contributions, and size constraints on these general articles severely limit space for discussion of positions which are not well supported by academic consensus. ..dave souza, talk 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition
Your additions to Extraordinary rendition indicate that you have not grasped the policy requirements of WP:NPOV : I suggest that you study that carefully and take it to heart before contributing further. Your insertion of bracketed point of view statements into quotations is a particularly ugly form of vandalism, misrepresenting the author of the original and misleading readers. These actions give you a bad name. If you want to contribute constructively please take more care. ...dave souza, talk 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Information about a highly contentious issue is never from a neutral point of view. Either you are informed with facts, or you accept the frequently biased opinions or manipulations of others. Fascism thrives with the neutral point of view and lies are easy to promote within such control. Politics is only marginally better. Science is a lot better (except when it grasps unproven theories as facts.) So should we accept politics as providing the facts when it comes to state sanctioned kidnapping (extraordinary rendition)... or is this a carefully contrived manipulation of words (by political bodies) to cover over a crime against humanity? Democracy requires that people speak their minds about contentious issues. So what's the real problem? Do you live in one of the countries where stated sanctioned fascism is still under control and you are protecting fascism rather than freedom of speech? Or are the limitations of the editing process the real problem? (Seeing two of my books are annotations of the words of others [in a different color of ink] I have learned to put comments where they are specifically required.) --AlanHarmony 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ..dave souza, talk 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)